California voters could soon decide whether to put Uber and Lyft on a much shorter legal leash. A proposed statewide ballot initiative would pile on new safety obligations for rideshare platforms, including annual fingerprint-based background checks for drivers, monthly public counts of sexual misconduct, and a legal reclassification that backers say would finally make the companies answer in court for assaults tied to rides. The measure has been cleared to begin signature gathering and could land on the November ballot if supporters hit the state’s threshold. Fans of the proposal call it a long-overdue rider-safety fix after years of damning headlines, while critics warn the package could shrink the driver pool and push fares higher.
The California Secretary of State signed off on the proposal for circulation on Jan. 2, 2026, giving proponent James C. Harrison 180 days to collect the 546,651 valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, according to the California Secretary of State. The state has set a July 1 deadline for turning petitions in to county elections officials so they can verify the signatures.
What the measure would do
The initiative would explicitly classify rideshare companies as "common carriers" and require platforms to publish monthly counts of sexual misconduct and sexual assault incidents, run California Department of Justice fingerprint background checks for drivers before they are onboarded and then annually, and disclose any internal hazard or risk scores to riders before they are matched with a driver, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. It would also give the California Public Utilities Commission authority to fine the platforms. The LAO estimates state costs for fingerprint processing could land in the low-to-mid tens of millions of dollars each year, with additional court and enforcement costs layered on top.
Why backers say it's needed
Supporters point to the scale of reported incidents and argue that the current system leaves riders exposed. The New York Times reported that unsealed court records show Uber logged roughly 400,181 reports of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States between 2017 and 2022, which works out to about one report every eight minutes. Advocates, including Consumer Watchdog, have blasted those figures across California with billboards and public campaigns, arguing that mandatory incident reporting and fingerprint checks would force transparency and push companies to more aggressively police drivers.
What it could mean for riders and drivers
Opponents say fingerprinting rules and heavier platform liability could make it harder to recruit and keep drivers, which in turn could mean longer wait times and higher prices for riders. They point to an earlier warning sign: fingerprint rules in Austin prompted Uber and Lyft to suspend service in the city in 2016, as reported at the time by Fortune. Supporters respond that the California proposal would not convert drivers into employees, a political landmine the state already stepped on with previous gig-worker fights, but would make the platforms legally responsible for sexual misconduct regardless of a driver’s contractor status. They say that shift in liability could nudge companies toward far stricter screening and enforcement without rewriting drivers’ job classifications.
Next steps and timeline
Signature gathering is underway across California, and the campaign must submit validated petitions by July 1, to county elections officials in order to qualify for the ballot. Local reporting has noted initiative strategist Dan Newman saying the campaign is leaning on reported incident counts in its pitch to voters and is collecting signatures at community events, and CBS 8 reported it reached out to Uber and Lyft for comment.
If the initiative qualifies, observers expect a robust, well-funded response from the rideshare industry and likely legal challenges over how any new rules would be put in place. Riders, drivers, and regulators in hubs like San Francisco and Los Angeles will be watching to see whether the signature drive, industry lobbying, and public pressure lead to a November vote and, if it passes, how quickly regulators move to translate the measure’s language into on-the-ground rules.
